Address · Ward 3 · Amber Morley
3526 Lake Shore Blvd W
About this address
- Ward
- Ward 3 · Amber Morley
- Location
- 43.59490, -79.53266
- How this address was located
- Matched exactly to a City of Toronto address point.
Sources: City of Toronto Lobbyist Registry, Development Applications, Committee of Adjustment Applications and Address Points (open data). Lobbyist Registry · Development Applications · Committee of Adjustment · Address Points
Email alerts · at most one a day
Registrations that mention this address
2These registrations name this address in their particulars, after the address was standardised (street type and direction abbreviations). This is a text match, not an inferred link.
Registrations by communications
Offices contacted on registrations that mention this address
Data table· 6 rows
| Office | Office holder type | Communications | Meetings | Last contact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mayor's Office | Councillor staff | 3 | 3 | 5 April 2019 |
| Amber Morley | Councillor staff | 3 | 3 | 17 June 2024 |
| Office of Councillor Grimes, Ward 3 | Councillor staff | 2 | 0 | 14 December 2018 |
| Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 2 | 0 | 14 December 2018 |
| Mayor John Tory | Councillor staff | 1 | 1 | 15 May 2019 |
| Ward 6 Etobicoke-Lakeshore | Member of council | 1 | 1 | 14 November 2018 |
All registrations· 2 rows
| Registration | Client | As written | Subject matter | Dates | Communications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SM27968 | Minto Communities Inc. | 3526 Lake Shore Blvd. West | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 4 April 2019 – 4 July 2024 | 1 |
| SM27007 | Minto Communities Inc. | 3526 Lake Shore Blvd. West | Planning and Development, Combined Application | 14 November 2018 – 31 December 2026 | 11 |
Development and Committee of Adjustment applications at this address
8- Submitted 30 January 2024Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0046/24EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 18 August 2022Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0037/22EYKClosed · Approved
- Submitted 21 December 2016Site Plan Approval (SA)Development application 16 269688 WET 06 SANOAC Issued · Approved
- Submitted 8 June 2015Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ)Development application 15 170337 WET 06 OZClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 8 June 2015Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 15 170350 WET 06 SBOMB Approved · Approved
- Submitted 13 September 2013Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB)Development application 13 235655 WET 06 SBClosed · Closed (outcome not recorded)
- Submitted 13 September 2013Minor variance (MV)Committee of Adjustment application A0428/13EYKApplication Withdrawn · Withdrawn
- Submitted 13 September 2013Consent (severance) (CO)Committee of Adjustment application B0059/13EYKApplication Withdrawn · Withdrawn
Data table· 8 rows
| Application | Type | Submitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| A0046/24EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 30 January 2024 | Closed Approved |
| B0037/22EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 18 August 2022 | Closed Approved |
| 16 269688 WET 06 SA Development application | Site Plan Approval (SA) | 21 December 2016 | NOAC Issued Approved |
| 15 170337 WET 06 OZ Development application | Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ) | 8 June 2015 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| 15 170350 WET 06 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 8 June 2015 | OMB Approved Approved |
| 13 235655 WET 06 SB Development application | Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB) | 13 September 2013 | Closed Closed (outcome not recorded) |
| A0428/13EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Minor variance (MV) | 13 September 2013 | Application Withdrawn Withdrawn |
| B0059/13EYK Committee of Adjustment application | Consent (severance) (CO) | 13 September 2013 | Application Withdrawn Withdrawn |
Linked lobbying registrations
No published links to development or Committee of Adjustment applications.
Council and committee items naming this address
None.
Comparison with similar applications
Committee of Adjustment applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Minor variance (MV), Ward 3
4 lobbied · 265 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Minor variance (MV), City-wide
173 lobbied · 3,646 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 4 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 265 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 173 | 126 | 75% (n=154) | 25% | 19% | 43% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 3,646 | 114 | 91% (n=3,058) | 9% | 4% | 27% |
Submission to hearing. Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.
Committee of Adjustment applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Consent (severance) (CO), City-wide
26 lobbied · 179 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Objection rate
Data table· 2 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Objection rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 26 | 184 | 79% (n=24) | 21% | 15% | 25% |
| Matched, unlobbied | 179 | 115 | 88% (n=133) | 12% | 3% | 25% |
Submission to hearing. Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.
Development applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Site Plan Approval (SA), Ward 3
24 lobbied · 100 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Site Plan Approval (SA), City-wide
449 lobbied · 1,237 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 24 | — | 100% (n=5) | 0% | 4% | 0.25 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 100 | 1,629 | 70% (n=10) | 30% | 4% | 0.14 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 449 | — | 100% (n=61) | 0% | 4% | 0.07 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 1,237 | 727 | 97% (n=96) | 3% | 3% | 0.04 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.
Development applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), Ward 3
37 lobbied · 72 matchedApproval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Official Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment (OZ), City-wide
573 lobbied · 763 matchedMedian days
Approval rate
Refusal rate
Appeal rate
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 37 | — | 100% (n=2) | 0% | 19% | 0.27 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 72 | — | 100% (n=6) | 0% | 15% | 0.04 |
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 573 | 1,925 | 100% (n=64) | 0% | 13% | 0.08 |
| Matched, unlobbied | 763 | 1,793 | 98% (n=70) | 2% | 13% | 0.05 |
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.
Development applications
Lobbied applications are compared only with unlobbied applications of the same type, in the same ward, submitted in the same year and of the same size band (units or floor area from the description; sub-type for Committee of Adjustment files). Unlobbied applications are weighted to match the lobbied group. Raw lobbied versus unlobbied averages are not reported.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), Ward 3
1 lobbied · 1 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Draft Plan of Subdivision (SB), City-wide
16 lobbied · 48 matchedHidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group.
Data table· 4 rows
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 1 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Group | n | Median days | Approval rate | Refusal rate | Appeal rate | Council items |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lobbied | 16 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
| Matched, unlobbied | 48 | Hidden: fewer than 20 applications in the lobbied or the matched unlobbied group. | ||||
Submission to the first decision status seen in our daily loads (measured from launch). Approval and refusal rates are among applications with a recorded decision.
Large and complex applications attract both lobbying and longer reviews, and matching cannot remove every difference between applications, so a difference does not show that lobbying changed how an application was reviewed.
Lobbyists choose whom to contact, so a difference does not show a change of mind.